psychologywikiaorg-20200213-history
User talk:Margaret9mary
Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC) DBT Your comments on Dr. Kiffs talk page might be better placed on the talk page for that article. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ::Regarding your question to Dr. K, it appears that your comments are on the talk page. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Comments on my talk page These are interesting, but might be better on the talk page for the relevant article or in the article itself. I'm not sure why you are putting these comments on my talk page or what you are expecting of me.?? Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback Thanks for your comments on the link to the torture article.Clearly there needs to be more work done on making the issues regarding psychology involvement and ethics clearer Dr Joe Kiff 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Harlow I am not sure what your question was, could you pls explain further. It is an interesting thought. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 16:38, November 5, 2010 (UTC) Attachment Interesting points you make. You should probably realize that this site is devoted to expert writings, while many of the article on Wikipedia are edited by non-experts and can end up being owned by zealots with a particular view point to push...Attachment articles representing one such example where a number of non-experts claim the articles and present material that at time is relevant and at other times excludes relevant sources material that they don't agree with. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:16, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :When I saw your note of Feb. 13, 2011 I wondered why you sent me such a message. My primary interest in editing anything on WP and Psychology Wiki is good science, and readability for non-experts. When it comes to taking any position I first listen extensively to various positions and seek to find any common ground that might exist--even between extreme opponents*. :I've been patiently waiting for progress to be made on Attachment theory since the mid-1990s after reading Bowlby's Attachment. In 2006-7 I did extensive further reading and thinking about it for a paper (and used WP for a starting point for reading). Not until Dec 2010 did I involve myself with the WP/Wiki articles. :In the last 2 months I've been "parsing" Bowlby's Attachment--examining how it's constructed, reading and rereading carefully, etc. One of the most obvious points was the importance for Bowlby of "control" systems theory--this is a scientific worldview,--see Bale, below (however it was clear Bowlby was struggling to put into words the implications of systems theory for attachment theory and I've long been aware of the difficulties)--In the Index under "feedback control of behavior" more than 160 pages are listed--over 2/5 of the book. To make a comparison, on Fainites urging I purchased the'' Handbook of Attachment''. In the index of a book of nearly 1000 pages it has listed under "systems theory"--4 pages; under "feedback"--nothing. Clearly, Bowlby thought it central to his understanding and yet systems theory has been virtually left out of the Handbook. :Lawrence S. Bale has provided the best description of the paradigms of systems theory and of classic science in the first 8 pages of his article, Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences (1995)--http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbale_dop/cybernet.htm . (if this doesn't go through, the link is in the WP article on Gregory Bateson under Further Reading)-http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbale_dop/cybernet.htm. :The greatest problem which has delayed the understanding of systems theory has been to translate nonlinear thinking into terms linear thinkers can understand. I first saw this difficulty in the late 1970s in Gregory Bateson's ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind. '' *Note--my first insight into common ground was during the Cold War when I realized that neither Americans nor Soviets wanted to die--the U.S. military had dubbed their position with the acronym MAD (mutual assured destruction). : :The extremely long comments I wrote on the Talk page of the Attachment theory article on WP was my struggle to understand the conflict in views and how it could be remedied. But eventually it became evident that because my brain is wired to be a nonlinear, interdisciplinary thinker I was reading Bowlby with systems theory whereas apparently many people missed it. :I hope this goes far enough in explaining my position.Margaret9mary 00:35, February 18, 2011 (UTC) : :Note to myself--this was transposed to Dr. Art Weidman's Talk page 00:49, February 18, 2011 (UTC)(Margaret9mary ::Thanks for your comments. I do look forward to hearing more from you. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC) Systems theory I'm sorry for the delay in replying. I have had a month off and it has taken me a while to catch up with the outstanding maintenance task. Now to the queries. I think we have to remember that this is a site for psychology and what we write needs to be relevent to the audience. If you feel a diasambiguated page, exploring the systems theory approach to biological systems, needs writing and can draw on examples appropriate for our audience then please go ahead. Dr Joe Kiff 18:12, March 16, 2011 (UTC) ::I think you raise some interesting points. I think it is an important area and an article drawing out the main issues relevent to psychologists might be interesting. Why not try to produce something and we can crtitique and see where it leads.Dr Joe Kiff 10:08, March 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Beginning by putting your suggestions on the talk page is generally a good way to proceed as that will invite comments, suggestions, and improvements, and then the result can be put into the article itself. This way consensus is built. I'll be glad to work with you. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 10:58, March 18, 2011 (UTC) :::The Psychology Wiki is a different Wiki than Wikipedia. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 10:58, March 18, 2011 (UTC)